Dan Carlin Catch All

Nevin73 wrote:

But aside from military toughness, I really don't see our society doing without to support a war effort, the way the country did in the 40s. Our grandparents did without rubber, copper, certain foodstuffs were scarce, and other resources.

Right. There was also compulsory military service, high levels of social pressure to buy war bonds to finance the war, and the rationing rules were mandatory. It's not like our grandparents had a choice on whether to use rubber or copper. What's more, there was a flourishing black market in many goods and a frequent charges of profiteering.

Ranger Rick wrote:

The thought experiment is what if, on our border, there was a country that was in all ways the same as us except peopled by our WWII generation. Who would win in an all-out, us or them war.

Why would we be fighting if they were the same as us? This kind of experiment ignores the reason why wars are fought and how they're fought.

Funkenpants wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:

But aside from military toughness, I really don't see our society doing without to support a war effort, the way the country did in the 40s. Our grandparents did without rubber, copper, certain foodstuffs were scarce, and other resources.

Right. There was also compulsory military service, high levels of social pressure to buy war bonds to finance the war, and the rationing rules were mandatory. It's not like our grandparents had a choice on whether to use rubber or copper. What's more, there was a flourishing black market in many goods and a frequent charges of profiteering.

Ranger Rick wrote:

The thought experiment is what if, on our border, there was a country that was in all ways the same as us except peopled by our WWII generation. Who would win in an all-out, us or them war.

Why would we be fighting if they were the same as us? This kind of experiment ignores the reason why wars are fought and how they're fought.

In many ways the German people were very much like most of the 1940s US population. Many accounts indicate that US troops related the most closely with the German citizens in Europe than any others. And yet we still fought them because they were led by a fascist madman. Given the right circumstances, I believe that could happen, even to the US.

Nevin73 wrote:

In many ways the German people were very much like most of the 1940s US population. Many accounts indicate that US troops related the most closely with the German citizens in Europe than any others. And yet we still fought them because they were led by a fascist madman. Given the right circumstances, I believe that could happen, even to the US.

Remember that U.S. troops lived with the Brits a long time, and the French were dealing with shattered national pride and the after effects of an occupation by foreign invaders. There's a kind of friction in both circumstances. By the time the U.S. troops got to Germany late in the war the country was divided, had gone through years of daytime and night time bombing, and were in dire poverty. I suspect the reason troops felt so close to them was because they were prostrate and pitiable and were a defeated enemy. Would they have felt so close in 1939? (well, certainly some Americans did- but many didn't).

Even so, the scenario involves two nations that are exactly the same except "the greatest generation" lives in one. Same political system, same politics, same tech, same level of wealth, same foreign policy goals, same- well, you get the point. Why would people fight under such conditions? The Civil War is as close as you get circumstances where similar people fought each other, but the reason for the way were due to differences in political, social, and technological conditions.

The question to ask yourself is: If it was exactly the same as us, only peopled by our WWII generation, how would it be any different at all? If they're exactly the same as us, then they have all of our technologies, they use their television sets the same way, are as fat on average as modern Americans because they eat like us, etc.

This is a stupid thought experiment.

I don't have a strong opinion here, but I will make this observation: we like to play at being tough, without follow-through. We throw just enough hardware and soldiers into a conflict to make sure the country we're invading really hates us, but not enough to make them truly fear us. We're bullies without being willing to go all the way; we're willing to start wars with little thought, but we're unwilling to do what it takes to truly win that kind of conflict, which is total destruction of the country in question and complete dispersal (and possible outright execution) of the population. We're trying to split the difference, trying to be "the enemy of the bad guys" while "the friend of the good guys", when on the ground, you can't really tell the difference.

We're trying, in essence, to fight moral wars, and I don't think you can do that. If we're not willing to ethnically cleanse an area, we shouldn't be invading to attack non-state actors to begin with. Going after terrorists is a job for police, not armies, and until we finally figure that out, we'll be locked in an endless conflict without resolution. We act tough, but when push comes to shove, we're not willing to be tough enough. We need to either be Hitler or Gandhi, not both at the same time.

It's the chickenhawk approach to terrorism.

edit: Substituted 'ethnically cleanse' for 'ethically cleanse', but I wonder if the typo might not be better.

But aside from military toughness, I really don't see our society doing without to support a war effort, the way the country did in the 40s. Our grandparents did without rubber, copper, certain foodstuffs were scarce, and other resources.

But also like Paleo said, they also had segregation, were putting Asians into internment camps and women were only allowed to work good factory jobs or play baseball because of the war. Woman only had the right to vote for a decade or two. Hardly any of them went to college. Gays were beaten, disowned or both.

Is this a trade-off for toughness or was it caused by the same tough attitudes?

I think that as we evolve, we change the definition of strength on a large scale. That definition strays from physical toughness and determination towards mental resilience (dealing with weighty and complex ideas and morals) and mental prowess (advanced degrees). The problem is that we still gravitate towards physical prowess and conformity when we are growing up. And we those that shun intellectualism can congregate and revert the definition of strength on a local level.

As a nation we are still confused as to whether we'd rather win the Medal of Honor over the Nobel or Pulitzer prizes.

Oh, and in the theoretical fight of present-day US versus the US of WW2, we would absolutely destroy them over the short run; WW2 United States would have almost no military hardware left within weeks, and little ability to create new hardware within months. But actually invading and occupying? We would never, in a million years, win that fight.

Malor wrote:

Oh, and in the theoretical fight of present-day US versus the US of WW2, we would absolutely destroy them over the short run; WW2 United States would have almost no military hardware left within weeks, and little ability to create new hardware within months. But actually invading and occupying? We would never, in a million years, win that fight.

Why would we want to occupy a place where everyone is living like it's 1945? Did they attack us first?

Also, the U.S. Army invaded and occupied the southern states in the 1860s. So it's not like it's impossible to do it. Or would we need the Civil War generation to fight the WW2 generation?

Funkenpants wrote:

Why would we want to occupy a place where everyone is living like it's 1945? Did they attack us first?

I don't know, why did we occupy Afghanistan?

(zing)

LobsterMobster wrote:

I don't know, why did we occupy Afghanistan?

(zing)

Because the Taliban refused to surrender Osama after 9/11. If they'd given him up, we'd never had gone in.

Are you suggesting that he "greatest generation" would shelter Osama bin Laden?

Yup and when the IDF got its head handed to it in the 2006 Lebanon War by the very same style of Arab army we chopped to meat, folks got a far more realistic impression of differing capabilities.

Not a fair comparison. The Hezbollah units had been training for years for just this conflict, and had better intel and night fighting gear and training than the Israelis. Basically, they could monitor encrypted Israeli radio comms, see in the dark, communicate securely, work on their home terrain with pre-planned ambushes, and execute planned battles of attrition in villages against an enemy whose tactics they had exhaustively studied. This was *not* an Iraqi-style sinecure conscript military...

To kick this back a little towards Dan Carlin, I loved when he asked the question, "Why does Belgium exist?"

His point was that we are more civilized today and not merely focused on conquest.

Paleocon wrote:

How would they be "in all ways the same as us" whilst being peopled by the WW2 generation? They wouldn't be the same as us if they were peopled by the WW2 generation by definition.

It was more like, "same GDP, same level of technology, etc." but with the attitudes of the WWII generation.

Paleocon wrote:

We have arrived at the compromises of our society through a give and take of the environments we've had since that generation. We've created it as much as it has shaped us. If it was the WW2 generation and failed in any way to evolve or change, it would have arrived at a very different society to ours.

Ours is a freer society where blacks vote, women work, and people with slanty eyes aren't sent off to concentration camps. Ours is a richer society where innovation has driven a spectacular degree of wealth that generation could only dream of. Our is a more innovative society where capital flows freely to good ideas and drives success in technologies that generation couldn't conceive of.

As for "toughness", big deal. I'll take our society over theirs any day of the week.

...which was part of the point, I think. All of those things are wonderful attributes of our modern society that were at the expense of a perceived toughness that has been lost. The podcast wasn't about passing judgement on whether that's good or bad, he explored both sides of it, to some extent. He talks about how historically these types of "decadent declines" have been at the head of the fall of various societies, but for those living right after the peak, it's a good time to be living in that society for the average person. And then he talked about why some believe that may not apply this time around (because of changes in technology, etc.)

I guess putting this in the context of discussing the podcast doesn't work because all it does is turn it into people who haven't heard it arguing against a perception of what it was about based on small snippets from those who have, which completely skews the discussion.

Nevin73 wrote:

To kick this back a little towards Dan Carlin, I loved when he asked the question, "Why does Belgium exist?"

Because every potential enemy knows the US would crush down upon them if they tried something funny. Thanks for that btw

In return we make the best beer and chocolate known to mankind.

Robear wrote:
Yup and when the IDF got its head handed to it in the 2006 Lebanon War by the very same style of Arab army we chopped to meat, folks got a far more realistic impression of differing capabilities.

Not a fair comparison. The Hezbollah units had been training for years for just this conflict, and had better intel and night fighting gear and training than the Israelis. Basically, they could monitor encrypted Israeli radio comms, see in the dark, communicate securely, work on their home terrain with pre-planned ambushes, and execute planned battles of attrition in villages against an enemy whose tactics they had exhaustively studied. This was *not* an Iraqi-style sinecure conscript military...

Which is why I compared it to Second Fallujia and not the invasion of Iraq. The insurgent army in Second Fallujia was not a sinecure conscript army either. It was almost entirely battle-hardened foreign veterans from places like Chechnya, Afghanistan, and Bosnia. They were equipped with modern night vision and telecommunications equipment, had prepositioned cashes of weapons and ammunition, and had an extremely good working knowledge of how to use terrain and tactics. There is no doubt in my mind they would have handed the IDF's heads back to them on a platter as well.

What they didn't have, however, was (among other things) the sort of real time command and control infrastructure that the Marines did. This allowed the Marines to make battlefield decisions much faster and far more decisively than the insurgents were able to even on their home turf -- effectively nullifying their terrain advantage.

fangblackbone wrote:
But aside from military toughness, I really don't see our society doing without to support a war effort, the way the country did in the 40s. Our grandparents did without rubber, copper, certain foodstuffs were scarce, and other resources.

But also like Paleo said, they also had segregation, were putting Asians into internment camps and women were only allowed to work good factory jobs or play baseball because of the war. Woman only had the right to vote for a decade or two. Hardly any of them went to college. Gays were beaten, disowned or both.

Is this a trade-off for toughness or was it caused by the same tough attitudes?

I think that as we evolve, we change the definition of strength on a large scale. That definition strays from physical toughness and determination towards mental resilience (dealing with weighty and complex ideas and morals) and mental prowess (advanced degrees). The problem is that we still gravitate towards physical prowess and conformity when we are growing up. And we those that shun intellectualism can congregate and revert the definition of strength on a local level.

As a nation we are still confused as to whether we'd rather win the Medal of Honor over the Nobel or Pulitzer prizes.

I think both in the short and long run we'd kick the living snail snot out of the WW2 generation for precisely that reason. The "Greatest Generation" was too busy playing racial and gender superiority politics to recognize that a good two thirds of their population was being drastically underutilized. We may have our own problems with racial and gender politics, but the fact of the matter is that we do a much better job of providing opportunity now than they ever did in their time.

Take, for instance, an all star team of the best football players in pro sports in 1945. I'll take the lowly Detroit Lions. I guarantee my team will absolutely DESTROY the "Greatest Generation All Stars". Do the same for basketball and baseball.

A modern army which relegates African Americans to being cooks and laundry attendants would absolutely get its ass handed to them by our military today.

To give you some idea of my first real exposure to the "Greatest Generation", my ex girlfriend's grandfather was a torpedo engineer at the DC Naval Yard during WW2. He was a smart guy to be sure, but he was also the sort of person you were very glad belonged in the past.

He was a mean drunk who never had anything good to say about minorities in general or women working and he was really big on the idea of sending homosexuals to some island where they could be separated from the rest of America. (When I told this to a flaming gay college buddy, he instantly said "I'll take Ibiza, honey!")

I remember our first conversation like it was yesterday. He was talking about coming to DC during the Great Depression. He said "When I came here from Altoona Pennsylvania in 1939, I tell ya, the n*ggers really knew their place. They'd get off the sidewalk for you and let you pass...."

Afterwards, my ex said to me "There's nothing you can do about folks like him but wait for them to die.".

Nevin73 wrote:

To kick this back a little towards Dan Carlin, I loved when he asked the question, "Why does Belgium exist?"

Seriously. F*** Belgium.

LobsterMobster wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:

To kick this back a little towards Dan Carlin, I loved when he asked the question, "Why does Belgium exist?"

Seriously. F*** Belgium. ;)

You just earned yourself a full cavity search, next time you visit our beautiful country. Don't worry, your mother seemed to enjoy it

dejanzie wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:

To kick this back a little towards Dan Carlin, I loved when he asked the question, "Why does Belgium exist?"

Seriously. F*** Belgium. ;)

You just earned yourself a full cavity search, next time you visit our beautiful country. Don't worry, your mother seemed to enjoy it :twisted:

Really? My mom visited Belgium?

...Why?

LobsterMobster wrote:
dejanzie wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:

To kick this back a little towards Dan Carlin, I loved when he asked the question, "Why does Belgium exist?"

Seriously. F*** Belgium. ;)

You just earned yourself a full cavity search, next time you visit our beautiful country. Don't worry, your mother seemed to enjoy it :twisted:

Really? My mom visited Belgium?

...Why? ;)

My guess is she heard about the therapeutic melted butter baths.

LobsterMobster wrote:
dejanzie wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:

To kick this back a little towards Dan Carlin, I loved when he asked the question, "Why does Belgium exist?"

Seriously. F*** Belgium. ;)

You just earned yourself a full cavity search, next time you visit our beautiful country. Don't worry, your mother seemed to enjoy it :twisted:

Really? My mom visited Belgium?

...Why? ;)

To f*** Belgium. Seriously :-p

fangblackbone wrote:
A modern army which relegates African Americans to being cooks and laundry attendants would absolutely get its ass handed to them by our military today.

Don't forget the about the women! I distinctly remember hearing about pilot shortages in WW2. I imagine that would be a bit different if they'd have let woman be combat pilots.

There were female combat pilots. They just weren't on the books and had to buy their own bus tickets home.

The Japanese had them too, but they only used little girls. Our pilots were more mature, but could not transform into robots or power up their weapons by believing in their friends.

A modern army which relegates African Americans to being cooks and laundry attendants would absolutely get its ass handed to them by our military today.

Don't forget the about the women! I distinctly remember hearing about pilot shortages in WW2. I imagine that would be a bit different if they'd have let woman be combat pilots.

Take, for instance, an all star team of the best football players in pro sports in 1945. I'll take the lowly Detroit Lions. I guarantee my team will absolutely DESTROY the "Greatest Generation All Stars". Do the same for basketball and baseball.

Funny you should mention that. They recently announced the all NBA first team:

http://www.nba.com/2010/news/05/06/a...

Hmmm, Lebron, Howard, Kobe, Wade and Durant. Um, yeah, I think that would favor nicely even against the Dream Team. You could switch Kobe and Howard to pure D and have plenty of enough O from Lebron, Wade and Durant to get over 100 points per game. Oh wait, here's the second team: Melo, Nash, Deron Williams, Nowitzki, and Stoudemire. But there's more: 3rd team - Gasol, Duncan, Bogut, Joe Johnson, and Roy.

dejanzie wrote:

In return we make the best beer and chocolate known to mankind.

this

LobsterMobster wrote:
fangblackbone wrote:
A modern army which relegates African Americans to being cooks and laundry attendants would absolutely get its ass handed to them by our military today.

Don't forget the about the women! I distinctly remember hearing about pilot shortages in WW2. I imagine that would be a bit different if they'd have let woman be combat pilots.

There were female combat pilots. They just weren't on the books and had to buy their own bus tickets home.

The Japanese had them too, but they only used little girls. Our pilots were more mature, but could not transform into robots or power up their weapons by believing in their friends.

I would like to see documentation on this. I know women pilots were used to transport planes, but know of no WW2 American or British female combat pilots. The Russians, otoh, had a number of female fighter aces including the famously beautiful and deadly Lilya Litvyak.

Paleocon wrote:

I think both in the short and long run we'd kick the living snail snot out of the WW2 generation for precisely that reason. The "Greatest Generation" was too busy playing racial and gender superiority politics to recognize that a good two thirds of their population was being drastically underutilized. We may have our own problems with racial and gender politics, but the fact of the matter is that we do a much better job of providing opportunity now than they ever did in their time.

Take, for instance, an all star team of the best football players in pro sports in 1945. I'll take the lowly Detroit Lions. I guarantee my team will absolutely DESTROY the "Greatest Generation All Stars". Do the same for basketball and baseball.

A modern army which relegates African Americans to being cooks and laundry attendants would absolutely get its ass handed to them by our military today.

This is a similar premise of John Birmingham's Axis of Time Trilogy: a near future Marine Expeditionary Force who has been fighting the GWoT for decades gets warped back to WWII when an advanced physics experiment goes awry. The WWII crowd can't handle having blacks, Hispanics, and women in the military, let alone being their commanding officers. Birmingham does a pretty decent job highlighting the culture clash that would exist between the generations when it came to social mores, technology, and even military strategies.

Paleocon wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:
fangblackbone wrote:
A modern army which relegates African Americans to being cooks and laundry attendants would absolutely get its ass handed to them by our military today.

Don't forget the about the women! I distinctly remember hearing about pilot shortages in WW2. I imagine that would be a bit different if they'd have let woman be combat pilots.

There were female combat pilots. They just weren't on the books and had to buy their own bus tickets home.

The Japanese had them too, but they only used little girls. Our pilots were more mature, but could not transform into robots or power up their weapons by believing in their friends.

I would like to see documentation on this. I know women pilots were used to transport planes, but know of no WW2 American or British female combat pilots. The Russians, otoh, had a number of female fighter aces including the famously beautiful and deadly Lilya Litvyak.

Boing Boing had an article about them recently. I'm not having much luck finding it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_A...

Ours do combat missions are recognized as veterans and can rise into command ranks.

fangblackbone wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_A...

Ours do combat missions are recognized as veterans and can rise into command ranks.

Am I missing something? I don't think I saw combat in any of their histories though. It was occasionally dangerous work to be sure as I am sure there were wartime accidents in transporting the planes, but I don't think I've ever seen anything that has stated that British or American female pilots engaged the enemy during WW2.

The Russians, yes. British and Americans, no.

That was my point. I should clarify. When I say "ours" I meant to contrast our modern women pilots vs. the WW2 generation women pilots. This had nothing to do with the Russians. The U.S. WW2 women pilots were not considered veterans until the Obama administration.